This is a reasonably good interpretation of the question. Yes.

Assuming a problem Px has happened to generated the question Qx. I have already processed from the problem state Px, to the question state Qx. I have eliminated possible solutions (Sa, Sb, Sc) that I have come up with and why they won't work alongside the details of my entire situation. Where Px is a big problem space and explaining an entire situation would be to write the universe on paper (pointless and not helpful to anyone).

Or I decided that it is possible to work on a small part of Px with a question Qx. To ask the question Qx is to specify where in the problem space I am trying to work, and starting from there.

If I were to ask the problem question "why don't people understand me?" I alone can generate hundreds of excuses and reasons for it, that is unhelpful. I have already narrowed Px down to a Qx strategy for solving it. I wanted to ask the specific, "getting people to answer the face-question" the one I chose to ask, not the entire problem set that it comes from.

If I asked the full problem-space at once, no one would read it because it would be too long, and then no one would respond.

At some point the responder should be assuming that the OP actually knows Px that they are asking about and are asking Qx for a good reason (possibly a long one not worth explaining in detail). How can I make that point happen precisely when I ask the question and not 5 interactions later? I would have thought it would involve a caveat of "don't answer in this way because I considered Sa, Sb, Sc already". (i.e. my use of the phrase - Assuming X...)

Also important: is the process of "answering the wrong question" (as I am trying to describe it) able to be reasonably defined as responding to a strawman of a question?

Is asking a literal-face-value question a bad idea? If that's the question I want to be answered?